Feedback on Frame Design – Over-Engineered or Solid?

Hey everyone,


I’ve been working on designing a frame for my project and I’m at the point where I’d really appreciate a second opinion from people who know their stuff.


The main chassis frame is made from 1.5” steel tubing, and the roll frame is 2” steel for added strength and safety. I’m trying to strike a good balance between strength, weight, and fabrication simplicity, but I’m starting to worry that I may have over-complicated the design with extra bracing and geometry that might not actually add much benefit.


If anyone’s willing to take a look and let me know if it looks solid or unnecessarily complex, I’d appreciate it. I’m aiming for something that can handle real-world loads safely but don’t want to make life harder on myself if I don’t need to.


Let me know if you need more specifics or drawings to give feedback. Thanks in advance!
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2025-06-19 134209.png
    Screenshot 2025-06-19 134209.png
    1 MB · Views: 34
  • Screenshot 2025-06-19 134217.png
    Screenshot 2025-06-19 134217.png
    242.4 KB · Views: 28
  • Screenshot 2025-06-19 134319.png
    Screenshot 2025-06-19 134319.png
    243.2 KB · Views: 22
  • Screenshot 2025-06-19 134328.png
    Screenshot 2025-06-19 134328.png
    220.7 KB · Views: 26
  • Screenshot 2025-06-19 134421.png
    Screenshot 2025-06-19 134421.png
    1 MB · Views: 33
I plan on using 0.120" thick steel. It's a little on the heavy side being 600-650 lbs, but I rather error on the side of safety than being light as I'm planning on using an ls3 engine which will probably produce 40-450+ HP.
 

Neil

Supporter
I plan on using 0.120" thick steel. It's a little on the heavy side being 600-650 lbs, but I rather error on the side of safety than being light as I'm planning on using an ls3 engine which will probably produce 40-450+ HP.
A chassis & cage of 1,5" OD with an 0.090" wall should be OK. The roll cage & chassis should be built with seamless SAE 1020 mild steel tubing. This allows the structure to deform plastically in a collision, absorbing energy as it deforms. I think you can greatly simplify your structure without much compromise in safety.

My friend Rob crashed his streamliner at Bonneville a few years ago. He was traveling at 432 mph when things went wrong. The car became airborne, tumbled and rolled for more than a quarter mile before it came to a stop. Rob survived-- his chassis and cage did its job. Even so, the high "G" forces produced a closed brain injury, similar to a stroke. He has recovered but not 100% A stronger structure does not always add more protection.

Carbinite Streamliner a.jpg
 
I'm sorry to hear about your friend. Thank you for the advice about tube thickness, based on what you see do you have any areas I could remove any structural elements?
 
As above; You need triangulation on the sides of the structure.
I would recommend that you define the pickup points for your suspension, especially the shock/spring mounts.
This is where your loads will act to try twisting the chassis, areas you need to focus on triangulation and reinforcements.
If you are going to use corvette bits bremar has got scan data for purchase online...
In a few areas you have added triangulation in both directions plus a horizontal tube, this seems a bit overkill.

Also consider;
Round tubing is nice strengthwise but will add alot of complexity during fab and in areas where you are to close up with plates (which is quite a few in the end)
Square and rectangular tubing is in my opinion easier to work with and get good fitment to avoid alot of stress and distortion after welding.
Maybe you could combine round and square sections and make some of them detachable for easy servicing?
 

Pedro

Guest
Supporter
You may want to take a look at this build, lots of good information here.

 

Mike Pass

Supporter
Cheers
Mike
 
Back
Top